OM vs Nikon System

[Mark Fisher]

I think it is pretty obvious from this thread, that all systems have their fans. Honestly, all prime lenses from the major makers are plenty good enough. I firmly believe that the choice has more to do with mechanics and ergonomics than anything else. The OM series is small....this is great for carrying and my small hands. The shutter dial is in exactly the right spot to me. Other people with bigger hands would likely hate it. I'm glad we have so many choices!

 

[Allan Swindles]

kanzlr, sorry, you are correct. I knew that, so why did I add the T? Old age or perhaphs the large Scotch.
Mark Fisher, also correct. Somehow, I could never get to grips (no pun intended) with Nikon. Until the OM system came into being I was a medium format user (Rollei TLR and Hasselblad) and it seemed to me that the reduction in neg. size and subsequent reduction in image quality, relative to the weight/bulkiness of the gear, seemed not worthwhile. The OM system changed my thinking.

 

[eurekaiv]

My Nikon kit looks like this... FE2 (just sold my F3), FG with a Tokina 17 3.5, 20 3.5, 24 2.8, 28 2.8 AI, 35mm 2.0 (AF-D), 50mm 1.4 AI, 60mm Micro (AF-D), 105 2.5 (P type), Vivitar S1 70-210 3.5
My OM kit looks like this... OM2n (three), OM4 with a Soligor 24 2.8 (mediocre), Kiron 28 2.0 (excellent) 2 50 1.8s, 50 1.4, 105 2.8, 75-150 4, Soligor 70-210 4 (above average)

I almost without hesitation use an OM over a Nikon (unless I have a specific lens in mind) mostly because of mechanics and ergonomics as mentioned above. I prefer the size and simplicity of the OM system lenses. As far as image quality goes, there's some differences in the equivalents that I own. In particular, the Nikon 105 is a lot better then the Zuiko 100. A lot. It also weighs twice as much. The 50 1.4s seem similar to me on the other hand. In general, I feel like my Zuiko lenses sorta "disappear" from the final images whereas the Nikons have a bit of "character" about them. That isn't meant to be a positive or negative, just a simple observation. The off brand stuff, well that's kinda irrelevant to any comparison. Frankly, if I want to use a system where the lenses really have character, I use my Spotmatic and associated Takumars.

 

[kanzlr]

I used Nikon gear for years, but somehow never bonded with it. It worked well, was reliable, etc. Olympus and Minolta on the other hand triggered something in me

 

[franny]

As far as image quality goes, there's some differences in the equivalents that I own. In particular, the Nikon 105 is a lot better then the Zuiko 100..

Interesting that you think that the Nikon 105 is a lot better than the Zuiko 100. I'd perhaps try a Nikon F2 + 105mm f2.5 Sonnar to see what all the craze is about, but perhaps not. I'm beginning to realize that searching for the best glass/camera system (within the constraints of 35mm SLR) is kind of a waste of time. It's choosing between excellent and excellent. All of the Japanese/German manufacturers made good lenses/systems...except for Canon (I'm not serious ). The difference boils down to ergonomics and availability, I think. Well price too.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Interesting that you think that the Nikon 105 is a lot better than the Zuiko 100. I'd perhaps try a Nikon F2 + 105mm f2.5 Sonnar to see what all the craze is about, but perhaps not. I'm beginning to realize that searching for the best glass/camera system (within the constraints of 35mm SLR) is kind of a waste of time. It's choosing between excellent and excellent. All of the Japanese/German manufacturers made good lenses/systems...except for Canon (I'm not serious ). The difference boils down to ergonomics and availability, I think. Well price too.

If you intend to take your pictures without a tripod, that's what the OM1/2 had been designed for in the first place, the differences in the lenses don't matter anyway.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

You have previous experience with leicas as you have previously posted. The Om system was inspired by Leica. The Om 1 originally was the M1. You will like the OMs. If you don't you can always flip it, nice working bodies are always in demand from both systems you are deciding on.

 

[Diapositivo]

The choice is obvious: Olympus if you want to reach infinite turning the focusing ring toward the left (infinite mark to the right). Nikon if you want to reach infinite turning the focusing ring to the right (infinite mark to the left). If you already have an experience with a manual focus camera, changing focusing direction might drive you insane. That's in my experience. YMMV.

Either than that: choose Olympus for compactness of the system. Choose Nikon for ruggedness, reliability in extreme conditions and easier repair.

And if you want the best lens quality for the bucks, look elsewhere (Minolta, Pentax)

 

[jakeblues]

I just came back walking the dog. I was carrying my OM1 with 1.8/50 MIJ mounted in the pocket of my jacket just to fill up the roll with some pictures of fallen leafs. May be there are some Pentax bodies equally small as the OM-bodies but the lenses aren't. And there is another difference to Pentax. In making the bodies small they made the controls tiny too. Olympus managed to minimize the size of the body while keeping the controls and the finder large. I have never felt it to be a drawback that I can not see the dialed in speed and aperture in the finder. The finder is uncluttered with distracting information. I use to decide on the aperture before raising the camera and the dialed in speed I can feel in my left hands middle finger and thumb, as the position of the grips of the speed ring is telling me.

Ulrich

I believe a Pentax MX with a M 50/1.7 is smaller than any OM equivalent. I've never owned an OM system, but I can vouch for the portability of the small Pentax cameras and lenses.

Oh and my MX was offended by your comment about it's finder. I can barely see the whole thing when I look through the eyepiece..

 

[PentaxBronica]

I'm also puzzled by the comment earlier about light leakage into an OM viewfinder upsetting exposure. I've worn glasses for as long as I've had an SLR, and I've never noticed it being a problem. Pentax do include a clip-on cover to use if you're firing the shutter remotely (to keep stray light out) but I can only see it being a problem if you have the viewfinder in strong direct sunlight.

As for the different lens speeds there's often more to it than "faster are more expensive". I don't know about Olympus or Nikon but Pentax did optimise lenses in the same focal length for different purposes. The 55mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.7 were designed to be a sharp, standard lens - sharp enough to tolerate abuse with teleconverters and extension tubes. The 50/1.4 was aimed at reporters, where speed was more important. It renders differently to the slightly slower lenses and is slightly softer wide open.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I believe a Pentax MX with a M 50/1.7 is smaller than any OM equivalent. I've never owned an OM system, but I can vouch for the portability of the small Pentax cameras and lenses.

May be you are right